mathwikiaorg-20200223-history
User talk:Acer4666
Welcome Hi, welcome to Mathematics! Thanks for your edit to the Chain rule page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- SpikeToronto (Talk) 13:01, May 21, 2012 I would also like to welcome you, and thank you for the work you've already done. Fallacies like dividing by 0 and the assumption that the square root of x squared is positive should be left in the dust, and I applaud you for doing so. Of all your work on wikis, which makes you the most proud? — Jeff G. ツ 03:52, June 5, 2012 (UTC) :Hey, thanks! I wanted to make a few pages about real analysis, as I like the journey you can go on where one step leads to another etc. towards the fundamental theorem of calculus. I'll hopefully get round to making more pages now, and I'll try to work out alternate proofs of those fallacies I've come across. :As for my wiki work - I haven't done all that much really, and I guess most of it has been on Wiki 24, which would what I'd be proud of - I managed to identify a lot of filming locations for the show despite there being pretty much no information already on the internet about it. That's what I like about wikis - being able to put information out there that isn't already available. It'd be great if math wiki could get to the point where anyone with a mind to could get a school or university level understanding of maths just from this site!--Acer4666 (talk) 11:03, June 5, 2012 (UTC) ::Hey Acer! A bit late, I know, but I wanted to also personally welcome you to the site. Your contributions so far are wonderful. In my own case, what I know about math wouldn’t fill a thimble! I just help the wiki out with administrative duties. Therefore, if you find yourself in any editing disputes, or just having math-oriented questions, speak to Jeff. If you just need someone who has the sysop bit to do something for you, you can contact me. Thanks again, and happy editing! — SpikeToronto 03:00, June 6, 2012 (UTC) About the chain rule The first proof Gottfried Leibniz gave for the chain rule is the precise one I gave, and it is in fact perfectly valid. It is because the limiting operation respects multiplicativity. You just make the proof longer by taking in the complete expression for the derivative. The proof was not fallacious and was the perfect way to obtain the chain rule in the first place. This holds because the two functions are meromorphic in the entire complex plane. The actual analogy of solving differential equations comes from treating "du" as an infinitesimal ''number rather than ''zero. Because, as far as it is small, it is still in existence. While you can't take out just "d" s (because they simply are signs representing infinitesimal change), you can still take out "du" as a whole. And as I said, establishing this fact again with a longer proof is nothing helpful. Your proof, as I said, does not make use of the limit's respect to multiplicativity when both limits exist, which we assume them to.This is how you cancel out differentials "rigorously". Read my new edit on the chain rule page. Starfall.V 15:27, May 31, 2012 (UTC) :No, it's not a proof. Leibniz wrote that but it is by no means a proof - I'm sorry that you find rigour "nothing helpful", but you cannot call it a proof. You haven't defined anything in your proof, you haven't even said what you are cancelling (you just said "we can cancel out 'dy','dx' and other terms" - no specifics given) so there is no way it could ever pass as a proof. Proofs work from definitions and make clear logical steps to the answer. See [here, "it appears that we can just cancel out the du's!!!! (Of course, this really makes no literal sense, since du itself has no explicit numerical significance.", or here, "I gather that you do know that method isn't really a proof.",--Acer4666 (talk) 17:53, May 24, 2012 (UTC) ::I will be happy to inspect any proper proof you give, using definitions and rigour. However your first one was just an arm-waving paragraph with no specifics and what is currently on the page is a load of parsing errors. ::In regards to my proof not making use of the limit's respect to multiplicativity, please read again where I have linked to the Algebra of Limits, that is where I use it.--Acer4666 (talk) 11:47, June 2, 2012 (UTC) Ok, I managed to fix your parsing errors. You were writing "\0" instead of just "0". I'll post the proof here for discussion: "This makes use of the limiting operation's respect to multiplicativity. \frac{\mathrm{d}y}{\mathrm{d}u}\cdot\frac{\mathrm{d}u}{\mathrm{d}x}=\lim_{\delta u \to 0}\frac{y(u+\delta u)-y(u)}{\delta u} \cdot \lim_{\delta x \to 0}\frac{u(x+\delta x)-u(x)}{\delta x} You might think we are stuck here, but we are able to express the change in u in terms of x: \lim_{\delta x \to 0}\frac{y(u(x)+u(x+\delta x)-u(x))-y(u)}{u(x+\delta x)-u(x)} \cdot \frac{u(x+\delta x)-u(x)}{\delta x} I hope you can see the pattern: \lim_{\delta x \to 0}\frac{y(u(x)+u(x+\delta x)-u(x))-y(u)}{\delta x}=\lim_{\delta x\to 0}\frac{y(u(x+\delta x))-y(u(x))}{\delta x} But this is simply the definition of the derivative of y(u(x)), proving the chain rule." Here's the fallacious step - On the lines "I hope you can see the pattern", you cancel out u(x+\delta x)-u(x) from the top and bottom. But you don't know what function u is - and it's perfectly possible that u(x+\delta x)=u(x) for some or possibly all \delta x . 0 divided by 0 is not 1. I've removed it from the page.--Acer4666 (talk) 18:47, June 2, 2012 (UTC) :If you are still confused, perhaps this will help: you talked above about "treating "du" as an infinitesimal ''number rather than ''zero". But what you need to remember is that u is a function of x, so actually du is the resulting change in u incurred by an infinitesimal change in x. Take u to be the constant function and you will see that it's perfectly possible that du is zero, despite it representing an infinitesimal change (in x)--Acer4666 (talk) 18:57, June 2, 2012 (UTC) Reverting vandalism Hey Acer! I wanted to thank you for vandalism reverts that you’ve performed. After you revert vandalism, just in case I miss it at , would you please let me know on my talkpage? That way I can be sure to apply blocks and/or page protections where and when necessary. It would be very much appreciated. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 05:41, June 6, 2012 (UTC) :Yeah, no worries - just because it was an anon passing through, I assumed it was an error in good faith. But I'll post a message on your page and let you make the call next time--Acer4666 (talk) 11:12, June 6, 2012 (UTC) ::Acer, I wasn’t thinking of any vandalism revert in particular. Your reverts all looked good to me! I just wanted to ask you the favor of letting me know so I can follow up. I don’t always see them in if I’m rushing. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 11:22, June 6, 2012 (UTC) :::Ah, ok. No problems then, will do!--Acer4666 (talk) 11:24, June 6, 2012 (UTC) Table of least common multiples (to 32) Acer, would you mind reviewing these two edits and tell me if they are okay? It looks like the editor is fixing the table, but it becomes much smaller afterwards. Is this because he's removed data? Thanks! :) — SpikeToronto 03:31, July 13, 2012 (UTC) :Yes, they've removed data so it's no longer upto 32, and now just upto 12. However, the 32-table was overlapping the sidebar etc. so dunno what to do?--Acer4666 (talk) 05:59, July 13, 2012 (UTC) ::I guess we'll have to revert the edits to to get the data back. As for the overlap of the table, let's ask TK-999 and see if he can fix the table. Thanks Acer! :) — SpikeToronto 06:28, July 13, 2012 (UTC) Thank you … … for this. — SpikeToronto 07:56, August 28, 2012 (UTC) :No worries!--Acer4666 (talk) 22:15, September 15, 2012 (UTC) Wiki menu Acer, what would you like to see added to the navigation menu for this wiki? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:57, August 28, 2012 (UTC) :Hey Spike - I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with all the content here to say for sure. Sorry I hope to get more involved in the content in the future and may have a better idea then!--Acer4666 (talk) 22:15, September 15, 2012 (UTC) My 13th Wiki that I exist on! Here you are! As you notice in the Recent Wiki Activity, I simply found a of couple pages and cleaned them up. As I personally have 2 large Texas Instruments calculators that.... ..can really do stuff, I might be making some far-fetched pages on certain functions. (The smaller and newer of my two, the TI84 Plus Silver Edition, even has a Periodic Table - isn't that great?) Let me know if something rings any no-no bells, HiddenVale (talk) 00:20, September 9, 2012 (UTC) :Hey - thanks for joining! I've undone a couple of your edits, and explained in the edit summaries, but mainly good work!--Acer4666 (talk) 22:15, September 15, 2012 (UTC) Triangle stuff Do enlighten me about your undoing of vocabulary and corrections on the Triangle page. HiddenVale 02:22, October 18, 2012 (UTC) :Very well - "triangle" is not a proper noun, so it should not be capitalised. An equilateral triangle definition is not equivalent to the acute-isosceles triangle definition (think of the none-equilateral triangle with angles 50, 50, 80 that is acute-isosceles). Your change to the "altitude" section implied that every triangle had a pre-determined "base" and "vertex" - but this is not so, any edge can serve as a base. Calling an angle bisector a "bisection of a triangle" is misleading and incorrect, because in most cases it does not bisect (ie, split into equal parts) the triangle, hence the need of the prefix "angle" to indicate it is the angle that is being split in half.--Acer4666 (talk) 09:08, October 18, 2012 (UTC) Peano axioms Hey Acer! I wonder if you could check the last two edits here and tell me if they are correct? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 08:01, October 23, 2012 (UTC) :Hey! I'd already checked the latest one, which was fine, but the one from 2010 was a bit iffy - generally there's controversy over whether 0 is a natural number, but in the context of the Peano axioms you have to assume it is as they are a way of constructing the natural numbers starting at zero. So I've reverted that change. Let me know if theres anything else!--Acer4666 (talk) 08:27, October 23, 2012 (UTC) ::Thanks a million! Like I’ve said before, what I know about math would fit on the head of a pin. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 10:05, October 23, 2012 (UTC) Talkback: SpikeToronto — SpikeToronto 12:49, December 2, 2012 (UTC) Triangle inequality#Extended Triangle Inequality Hi Acer! Would you please do me a favor and review the new material at Triangle inequality#Extended Triangle Inequality for correctness? Thanks! :) — SpikeToronto 07:14, December 20, 2012 (UTC) :Hey - what has been written is correct, however strictly speaking I don't think it should be on that article. What has been said is really a corollary of the converse of the Pythagorean theorem so that article may be a better place.--Acer4666 (talk) 13:22, December 20, 2012 (UTC) ::Thanks Acer! I’ll pass that on to the other editor. You might also want to make an article talkpage comment to that effect. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 19:56, December 20, 2012 (UTC) Thanks … … for this. Frankly, I never know how to clean up that article. — SpikeToronto 02:24, February 12, 2013 (UTC) :It's a bit of a stupid thing to have as an article, because it doesn't need proving, as by its very definition 0.999... = 1, but I guess enough people don't understand that in order to warrant an article explaining it. :And thank you for showing me how to shorten URL links to diffs in that last post ;)--Acer4666 (talk) 11:58, February 12, 2013 (UTC) ::Haha. :) Rappy showed me. And now I’ve shown you. It only works for two diffs that follow one another, by the way. — SpikeToronto 14:09, March 15, 2013 (UTC) Promotion The other Bureaucrat – Jeff G. – and I were talking and felt you’d make a great Administrator. So, we promoted you! If you would rather not, let one of us know, and we’ll undo it. Thanks! :) — SpikeToronto 14:13, March 15, 2013 (UTC) :Thank you very much! I've unfortunately not been able to check back here as often as I'd like - feel free to keep asking me about any edits and I will try to get back here for some content addition when I have some time--Acer4666 (talk) 12:11, April 14, 2013 (UTC) ::You have no idea how much I appreciate it! I know nothing about math. And the people that did know about math all disappeared when Wikia introduced the Oasis skin. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 12:15, April 14, 2013 (UTC) Catalan solid Acer, what do you think of this new page: Catalan solid? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 15:55, March 15, 2013 (UTC) :It's a legitimate topic for a page - needs expansion though!--Acer4666 (talk) 12:11, April 14, 2013 (UTC) ::Thanks! I didn’t know solids had different properties in that part of Spain. :P — SpikeToronto 12:17, April 14, 2013 (UTC) Cis θ Acer, I was wondering if you could take a look at these edits from the Cis θ article? I cannot tell if they are correct, or subtle vandalism. Thanks! :) — SpikeToronto 11:59, April 14, 2013 (UTC) P.S. I have rolled the edits back. They seemed to make the article no longer about Cis θ, but rather about Cos θ. — SpikeToronto 12:05, April 14, 2013 (UTC) P.P.S. The same editor went on to create an article at Cos θ that you might also want to take a look at. Thanks! :) — SpikeToronto 12:05, April 14, 2013 (UTC) :Oops - you just beat me. Yeah, that stuff was about "cis θ" and wasn't true for cos. The "cos θ" page was just a copy of it, so i changed it to a v. brief intro as to what cos θ actually was.--Acer4666 (talk) 12:11, April 14, 2013 (UTC) ::You’re quick! I saw all the changes you made. Thank you very much! :) — SpikeToronto 12:18, April 14, 2013 (UTC) hello i am lola i just joined wikia and im having trouble understanding the website so i hope that u will be able 2 help me thnxLola tash (talk) 15:08, April 16, 2013 (UTC) Hey I'm a New User My passion is math. I'd like to be a huge help. Hey Acer! Hey Acer! Hope all’s well. I notice you’ve been away lately. Everything okay? — SpikeToronto 17:23, November 23, 2013 (UTC)